The Vale of Money
May. 6th, 2007 09:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksSo, there's a post on 2+2 in the Internet Gambling thread. "Is Party Full Ring Now Tighter Than Stars?".
Obviously this now refers to NL, since limit is clearly going the way of 7-card stud.
This generates a few of the usual egg responses such as "Play 6-max, lol", but a couple of others observed that the $200 buy-in games on Party now had about 9 regulars at every table, with most people multi-tabling and a whole raft of short-stack Germans. (I wonder if the discussion had the same tone on the German language part of 2+2? I suspect not.)
Anyhoo, Stigmata ends the thread with "you can just run over these nits by playing a gear faster than they are".
Well, darn it, the man has blown my secret. The way to beat the nit-fests on a wet afternoon was, for years, just to play a gear faster than them. This meant that you won a lot of small uncontested pots while they waited to win one big one. The downside to this was that it was as boring as hell.
And therein lies the problem. I hate to throw national characteristics around, but it seems to me when I have played these young mainland Europeans that they do not get bored sitting with a short stack, for hours, waiting for the right situation. (One reason that I don't want to throw national characteristics around is that I can think of two other players - Felicia and David Spanier - who played similarly.)
Most of these posters, however, DO get bored. Although they say to themselves that they are playing poker to win lots of money, the element of "job satisfaction" has to remain. And most poker players, even the 2+2ers, like to win big pots and lots of money in loose-action games. They don't want to "run over" multi-tabling rocks for small sums of money, frequently. Even if this method of winning actually has a lower volatility and a fairly similar win rate.
Why is this? After all, the lower your volatility, the better. I suspect that it's partly self-deception. If you are running at $12 an hour, with a variance of only a few bucks up or down, then it's hard to deny that your rate is in the region of $12 an hour.
However, if you are running at $12 an hour, but this ranges from wins of $500 an hour to losses of $450 an hour, you can 'fool' yourself that your "real" rate is in the region of more than $100 an hour, but you have just been unlucky. In other words, a loose-action game helps the small-time winners, as well as the small-time losers, fool themselves.
It's interesting to see how the (non-US) 2+2ers react to this trend on Party. Margaret Thatcher, who was a better chemist and politician than she was an economist, took a "classical economics" line in her early days. She saw the state as if it were a household, and assumed that if the state acted prudently in hard times (as a household does), then things would be fine.
Now, it doesn't take much of a brain to see the flaw in the argument here. There are millions of households in the UK, but only one state. What's right for one household amongst millions is not right for one state among, er, one.
But, I digress. The classical view is that, as poker becomes less attractive, people will "voluntarily withdraw from the market", thus restoring some kind of stasis. Unfortunately, what happens in real life is the same as what happens in poker. Some people go elsewhere for their money, while others react by working for longer hours in an attempt to generate the same amount of cash.
Part of this is, once again, the job satisfaction aspect. How much do you dislike your job? I don't know anyone who does a job that they literally can't bear the thought of doing. Everyone, in other words, gets some kind of job satisfaction. For those for whom poker is less of a chore, the more they are willing to work for lower wages. For those who are unemployable elsewhere (they don't enjoy poker so much, but they would enjoy anything else even less) there is greater grumbling, but the principle remains.
Others, meanwhile, leave, back to world of advertising, or whatever. They act in the mould of true classical economics.
++++++++
I've been dabbling in the $50NL games a bit since I got back, mainly because limit games are getting harder to find. Even at this low level (and it is definitely lower than $2-$4 limit) there are tables of serious tightness abounding. And I love it. It's a bit like playing in a tight limit game, except that you have to raise to three times the BB rather than 2 times.
Often you take down the blinds. Sometimes there is a defence and you take it down on the flop. At limit, all of this had become a struggle, because people knew what was going on. You would get three-bet by players on the button with very thin values (say, a pair of fives). While big blinds would defend more often, leading out on flops such as Jxx, check-raising rag flops, or just calling you down to the end with any pair.
At $50 NL, the players just don't know about this kind of stuff (and they don't know to take each bet as it comes. They just look at how big a stack you have sitting behind the first bet). Now, the rakeback by comparison is dreadful, and the bonus dollars on UB are now a lost cause, but if I am just focusing on an hourly rate at the table, rather than bonus-whoring, certain sites are offering some very attractive $50NL tables and could, I suspect, be offering attractive $100NL tables. I would think that $200NL would be about the equivalent of the average $2-$4 limit skill level at the moment.
I'll try to get in a few thousand hands at the lower levels first, just to get an estimate of the volatility, and to get the hang of the game.
Here's a couple of hands where I didn't really know what I was doing.
$50NL
Hero (Big Blind) is at seat 0 with $52.10.
WAFME is at seat 1 with $64.80.
Dern is at seat 2 with $46.70.
FOX 137 is at seat 3 with $52.90.
stitch1219 is at seat 4 with $41.10.
SavannahAnn is at seat 5 with $9.50.
IMBLUFFING is at seat 6 with $34.90.
melford1 is at seat 7 with $57.65.
Villain is at seat 8 with $55.20.
loumasala is at seat 9 with $59.05.
The button is at seat 8.
loumasala posts the small blind of $.25.
Hero posts the big blind of $.50.
Hero: 9♡ T♡
Pre-flop:
All fold to Villain calls.
loumasala folds. Hero checks.
So far, so non-contentious, I hope
Flop (board: 5♡ 4♡ T♠):
Hero checks. melford1 bets $1. Villain
raises to $2. Hero calls. melford1 folds.
Should I call for the two bucks here? Top pair with a flush draw looks very tempting, but I’m likely dominated on the pair front, and I’m not drawing to a nut flush. I seriously contemplated walking away at this point.
Turn (board: 5♡ 4♡ T♠ 6♡):
OK, so I’ve hit my flush. Let’s assume that opponent will put in a bet if I check. I reckon that (at this level) the size of the bet will reveal the strength of the hand.
Hero checks. Villain bets $1.25.
Hero raises to $8. Villain folds, showing
T♣ A♠. Hero is returned $6.75 (uncalled).
Is the raise of $6.75 too much? Villain has $55.20 at the start of the hand, so I don’t want to give him too free a ride. If he calls and a heart flops, and he bets anything reasonable, I guess I have to fold. I really need to know how opponents will react when I’m sizing raises in this kind of situation.
$.45 is raked from a pot of $9.25.
Hero wins $8.80.
WAFME is at seat 0 with $44.35.
HOT ACE GRL is at seat 1 with $24.75.
Hero is at seat 2 with $31.45.
texasdude444 is at seat 3 with $32.85.
Samiam_222 is at seat 4 with $22.60.
melford1 is at seat 5 with $49.
Clapper88 is at seat 6 with $54.30.
XTexas JokerX is at seat 7 with $10.75.
Gensu1 is at seat 8 with $27.30.
angels26 is at seat 9 with $29.65.
The button is at seat 2.
texasdude444 posts the small blind of $.25.
Samiam_222 posts the big blind of $.50.
Hero: K♣ K♠
Pre-flop:
All fold to angels26 calls. WAFME folds.
HOT ACE GRL folds. Hero raises to $2.25.
texasdude444 calls. Samiam_222 re-raises to $4.
angels26 folds. Hero goes all-in for $31.45.
texasdude444 folds. Samiam_222 folds. Hero is
returned $27.45 (uncalled).
It was late at night US time. The reraise from the big blind looks fairly awful play to me (either call, or reraise more, surely?) which made me think that this guy was not very good. He had $18 left in front of him and there was $28 for him to win (if we was thinking that clearly). But he folded, (showing JJ, by the way).
Do I raise less here? Enough, say, to pot-commit the guy if he calls, which would be a reraise of nine or ten bucks?
No rake is taken for this hand.
Hero wins $10.75.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously this now refers to NL, since limit is clearly going the way of 7-card stud.
This generates a few of the usual egg responses such as "Play 6-max, lol", but a couple of others observed that the $200 buy-in games on Party now had about 9 regulars at every table, with most people multi-tabling and a whole raft of short-stack Germans. (I wonder if the discussion had the same tone on the German language part of 2+2? I suspect not.)
Anyhoo, Stigmata ends the thread with "you can just run over these nits by playing a gear faster than they are".
Well, darn it, the man has blown my secret. The way to beat the nit-fests on a wet afternoon was, for years, just to play a gear faster than them. This meant that you won a lot of small uncontested pots while they waited to win one big one. The downside to this was that it was as boring as hell.
And therein lies the problem. I hate to throw national characteristics around, but it seems to me when I have played these young mainland Europeans that they do not get bored sitting with a short stack, for hours, waiting for the right situation. (One reason that I don't want to throw national characteristics around is that I can think of two other players - Felicia and David Spanier - who played similarly.)
Most of these posters, however, DO get bored. Although they say to themselves that they are playing poker to win lots of money, the element of "job satisfaction" has to remain. And most poker players, even the 2+2ers, like to win big pots and lots of money in loose-action games. They don't want to "run over" multi-tabling rocks for small sums of money, frequently. Even if this method of winning actually has a lower volatility and a fairly similar win rate.
Why is this? After all, the lower your volatility, the better. I suspect that it's partly self-deception. If you are running at $12 an hour, with a variance of only a few bucks up or down, then it's hard to deny that your rate is in the region of $12 an hour.
However, if you are running at $12 an hour, but this ranges from wins of $500 an hour to losses of $450 an hour, you can 'fool' yourself that your "real" rate is in the region of more than $100 an hour, but you have just been unlucky. In other words, a loose-action game helps the small-time winners, as well as the small-time losers, fool themselves.
It's interesting to see how the (non-US) 2+2ers react to this trend on Party. Margaret Thatcher, who was a better chemist and politician than she was an economist, took a "classical economics" line in her early days. She saw the state as if it were a household, and assumed that if the state acted prudently in hard times (as a household does), then things would be fine.
Now, it doesn't take much of a brain to see the flaw in the argument here. There are millions of households in the UK, but only one state. What's right for one household amongst millions is not right for one state among, er, one.
But, I digress. The classical view is that, as poker becomes less attractive, people will "voluntarily withdraw from the market", thus restoring some kind of stasis. Unfortunately, what happens in real life is the same as what happens in poker. Some people go elsewhere for their money, while others react by working for longer hours in an attempt to generate the same amount of cash.
Part of this is, once again, the job satisfaction aspect. How much do you dislike your job? I don't know anyone who does a job that they literally can't bear the thought of doing. Everyone, in other words, gets some kind of job satisfaction. For those for whom poker is less of a chore, the more they are willing to work for lower wages. For those who are unemployable elsewhere (they don't enjoy poker so much, but they would enjoy anything else even less) there is greater grumbling, but the principle remains.
Others, meanwhile, leave, back to world of advertising, or whatever. They act in the mould of true classical economics.
++++++++
I've been dabbling in the $50NL games a bit since I got back, mainly because limit games are getting harder to find. Even at this low level (and it is definitely lower than $2-$4 limit) there are tables of serious tightness abounding. And I love it. It's a bit like playing in a tight limit game, except that you have to raise to three times the BB rather than 2 times.
Often you take down the blinds. Sometimes there is a defence and you take it down on the flop. At limit, all of this had become a struggle, because people knew what was going on. You would get three-bet by players on the button with very thin values (say, a pair of fives). While big blinds would defend more often, leading out on flops such as Jxx, check-raising rag flops, or just calling you down to the end with any pair.
At $50 NL, the players just don't know about this kind of stuff (and they don't know to take each bet as it comes. They just look at how big a stack you have sitting behind the first bet). Now, the rakeback by comparison is dreadful, and the bonus dollars on UB are now a lost cause, but if I am just focusing on an hourly rate at the table, rather than bonus-whoring, certain sites are offering some very attractive $50NL tables and could, I suspect, be offering attractive $100NL tables. I would think that $200NL would be about the equivalent of the average $2-$4 limit skill level at the moment.
I'll try to get in a few thousand hands at the lower levels first, just to get an estimate of the volatility, and to get the hang of the game.
Here's a couple of hands where I didn't really know what I was doing.
$50NL
Hero (Big Blind) is at seat 0 with $52.10.
WAFME is at seat 1 with $64.80.
Dern is at seat 2 with $46.70.
FOX 137 is at seat 3 with $52.90.
stitch1219 is at seat 4 with $41.10.
SavannahAnn is at seat 5 with $9.50.
IMBLUFFING is at seat 6 with $34.90.
melford1 is at seat 7 with $57.65.
Villain is at seat 8 with $55.20.
loumasala is at seat 9 with $59.05.
The button is at seat 8.
loumasala posts the small blind of $.25.
Hero posts the big blind of $.50.
Hero: 9♡ T♡
Pre-flop:
All fold to Villain calls.
loumasala folds. Hero checks.
So far, so non-contentious, I hope
Flop (board: 5♡ 4♡ T♠):
Hero checks. melford1 bets $1. Villain
raises to $2. Hero calls. melford1 folds.
Should I call for the two bucks here? Top pair with a flush draw looks very tempting, but I’m likely dominated on the pair front, and I’m not drawing to a nut flush. I seriously contemplated walking away at this point.
Turn (board: 5♡ 4♡ T♠ 6♡):
OK, so I’ve hit my flush. Let’s assume that opponent will put in a bet if I check. I reckon that (at this level) the size of the bet will reveal the strength of the hand.
Hero checks. Villain bets $1.25.
Hero raises to $8. Villain folds, showing
T♣ A♠. Hero is returned $6.75 (uncalled).
Is the raise of $6.75 too much? Villain has $55.20 at the start of the hand, so I don’t want to give him too free a ride. If he calls and a heart flops, and he bets anything reasonable, I guess I have to fold. I really need to know how opponents will react when I’m sizing raises in this kind of situation.
$.45 is raked from a pot of $9.25.
Hero wins $8.80.
WAFME is at seat 0 with $44.35.
HOT ACE GRL is at seat 1 with $24.75.
Hero is at seat 2 with $31.45.
texasdude444 is at seat 3 with $32.85.
Samiam_222 is at seat 4 with $22.60.
melford1 is at seat 5 with $49.
Clapper88 is at seat 6 with $54.30.
XTexas JokerX is at seat 7 with $10.75.
Gensu1 is at seat 8 with $27.30.
angels26 is at seat 9 with $29.65.
The button is at seat 2.
texasdude444 posts the small blind of $.25.
Samiam_222 posts the big blind of $.50.
Hero: K♣ K♠
Pre-flop:
All fold to angels26 calls. WAFME folds.
HOT ACE GRL folds. Hero raises to $2.25.
texasdude444 calls. Samiam_222 re-raises to $4.
angels26 folds. Hero goes all-in for $31.45.
texasdude444 folds. Samiam_222 folds. Hero is
returned $27.45 (uncalled).
It was late at night US time. The reraise from the big blind looks fairly awful play to me (either call, or reraise more, surely?) which made me think that this guy was not very good. He had $18 left in front of him and there was $28 for him to win (if we was thinking that clearly). But he folded, (showing JJ, by the way).
Do I raise less here? Enough, say, to pot-commit the guy if he calls, which would be a reraise of nine or ten bucks?
No rake is taken for this hand.
Hero wins $10.75.
----------------------------------------------------------------
no subject
Date: 2007-05-07 12:15 am (UTC)In terms of hand feedback, I'll assume they play "typically". In reverese order, yes the reraise is too much. Normally only AA will call you here.
In terms of hand one, well you actually have quite a big hand. OK, if there are monsters under the bed you might be in trouble, but you're equity is quite strong. Folding should never be an option with those bets. You need to get out of limit thinking check raiseing. In NL, check raising looks waaayy more scarey, so you should do it far more infrequently. I would bet out half the pot or something on the turn.
gl
bdd
no subject
Date: 2007-05-07 09:42 am (UTC)On the KK reraise. Yes, even though I allowed for the fact that it was late at night US, that the raise from the guy in the first place indicated to me that he was not that good, and the fact that people seemed to be calling some amazing overbets, I should still have played this a bit more quietly. Instinctively I thought that I might get a call from AK or QQ.
I'm not giving up a tremendous amount of EV from the reraise (given the size of his stack and his range), if we assume that I'm committing myself to the hand even if an Ace flops.
Thanks for that point about the CR. You are right. I am (deliberately) bringing over limit thinking and slowly discarding the bits that need discarding. This is working better for me than trying to start from scratch. Indeed, I have been surprised how many limit plays do carry over, although I suspect that this is because I am in tight-passive games. I've looked at some hand histories on 2+2 and it seems clear that, at higher buy in levels ($200 and above? $400 and above?) players are more willing to call raises of 4xBB.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2007-05-07 11:34 am (UTC)Unbelievable. You really need to switch to thinking in terms of pot equity rather than your chance of winning the hand. Top pair and a flush draw is a monster here. I bet the pot on the flop and if I get raised then I re-raise.
How can you be seriously behind? If he has a flush draw as well then you must be ahead right now. An overpair? You're still 50-50. If he calls with his A 3 or A 2 nut flush draw + gutshot you're still 50-50. Say he has an open-ended straight flush draw? You're 70-30(!) A pair like 88/99? You're 95-5!! The only hands that really have you in trouble are sets but even then you're 28% v top set and 30% v bottom set so it's not a disaster. And all the times they don't have a set will more than make up.
So not betting the flop seems a big mistake although check-raising would of course be OK too. On the turn I'd just bet half the pot representing the flush and hoping top pair will call me down. I don't like your check-raise here so much because only better hands are calling/raising.
I think this hand illustrates the difference between Limit and NL thinking well and the million hands of Limit you've played has probably fucked your brain. In NL you're thinking "How can I win his stack?" and "How can I avoid losing my own as a big dog?". In NL terms you have a monster on the flop and want to get as much money in as possible. But on the turn you are in danger of losing your stack as a big underdog or drawing dead. I would go passive on the turn. Against an aggressive player just let them bluff off their chips or bet the turn light and the river lighter.
matt
no subject
Date: 2007-05-07 11:51 am (UTC)But, you are right. It feels counterintuitive to me to bet big with top pair (bad kicker) and a flush draw on the flop, but then for it to be better to slow down when I hit my flush on the turn. I just put the guy on AT or a set, because the players seem to be so passive at this level.
However, I can see what you are saying here and it makes sense.
I am TRYING to think the two things you advise (particularly the "avoid losing hand as a big dog"!), but my thinking remains limitish (against these passive, tightish players) in that I'm kind of looking to win lots of smallish uncontested pots, and to avoid losing big ones at SD. Of course, I'm looking to win big pots as well, and it's this contradiction that I need to address.
In NL and in Limit your thinking should surely be "How can I maximise my win rate?". Your questions are based on the premise that asking them is the best way to go about this. It's probably true, and I'm happy to proceed on that basis, but it's not a given. I only say this because staying on a single track of thought like that can cause problems if the nature of the game changes (as happened in recent years in No Limit tournaments, much to the detriment of the old-school thinkers who couldn't adapt to changing times).
If it's any comfort to you, BDD's "lead out for half the pot" advice seemed right to me, and I promised myself to follow it. A reassessment of the big difference between the CR in limit and the CR in No Limit is the second-most important thing that I have learnt so far.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2007-05-07 03:15 pm (UTC)Another interesting thing to hold in your mind over the table is "how can I stack him with this hand, and how does the betting through the streets have to go to achieve this?" Its at this litmus test that check raising often fails. It become slightly more useful in 6 max, but even then, its still normally the worst option.
gl
bdd
no subject
Date: 2007-05-07 04:34 pm (UTC)Yes, this is mentioned by Chen and Ankeman in TMOP, and it was something that I tried to bring to the table. But it's a bit like "do as I say and not as I do". I haven't got the correct actions mastered "in the heat of battle". That said, this was just a particular example where I was lost on estimating the strength of my hand.
I've actually deployed this line of thought (how much do I need to bet as a constant percentage of the pot on each street in order to stack off my opponent, and are three bets enough? If not, I need to get four bets in there via a check-raise. Yes?)
I've got about 2,000 hands in in the past three days, and I was trying to remember how many times I have stacked anyone off, and how I did it.
A quick glance through PT shows that I've taken another players whole stack between six and eight times in 2,000 hands (and four of those times, I've been the caller). I've been stacked off just once, which I know you might say is too few and is indicative of too little gamble, but caution is probably best while you are learning the ropes. And I also often have other players covered. I've lost to an iopponent's all-in maybe two or three times when I have not been put in for more than half my own stack.
People who have played one type of game for a long time often have no idea what a novice is unaware of (I have this problem when playing limit, but I try to overcome it). STT players in particular suffer from this, saying "it's automatic", when it's far from automatic until you've played 100K hands or so.
Thinking back on this hand in question (T9s on board of TXX two of your suit), if, and I know this is a big if, but bear with me for a moment in this thought experiment, you are CERTAIN that opponent has a set or AT, then what action do you take?
Now, your response is "but in real life, he has a whole range of hands that are not a set or AT".
To which my response is,
"And you know this, how?"
To which your only valid reply is, "experience".
Which, of course, is what I don't have. All I could see from this raiser was stats of 18/1 and an v low aggression factor. In limit, I could translate this immediately into a range of hands. In NL, I can't do that, yet.
Hence my (minor) annoyance at the "unbelievable" comment. It was a word borne out of experience which I don't have.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 01:24 pm (UTC)If you are certain that the opponent has you beat then make a weak lead ... a smallish bet designed to give you pot odds to outdraw them. Passive players are unlikely to raise without a monster so the weak lead is good.
The reason however I think betting the flop is much better is that hands like 77/88 say, or even AT, will often raise "to find out where they are in the hand". I think that much parroted phrase is greatly misunderstood and that's another topic but I can't fault the idea when deep-stacked. In this scenario that's exactly what you want as the stacks are shallow-enough that you can make a huge re-raise/allin knowing that if they call you're fine, and if they decide their underpair/TPTK is no good then you take down the pot with the worst hand. Shweet.
matt
no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 01:55 pm (UTC)Ahh, yes. But now you see why I wasn't too happy with the situation.
It seems to me that the "weak lead" is that it gives you a better opportunity to get all-in on the flop. As the stack sizes decrease to a level where a cr will create an all-in situation, then a cr becomes better.
As they decrease even further (say, to less than the size of the pot), then you might as well bet it all in on the lead because opponent will call anyway.
How do things change if the stack sizes increase?
Well, presumably, the pot will be bigger anyway, because the raise pre-flop would have been larger. But, suppose it wasn't?
How big does the pot have to be before a weak lead, followed by a medium sized raise from your opponent, have to be before you cannot get all your money in (or ebough of it) on the flop? And, if this is the case, what shnould your action be?
These kind of "thought-trees" are bread-and-butter to the consistent NL player, but I have to think about them consciously. I'm doing okay in the more standard scenarios, but this kind of half-and-half situation (where lots of different scenarios/probabilities add up to something very favourable, are tougher.
PJ